95. Kill someone because they dented your car and you'll see what humanity thinks of

129. it's not about property, not at all. It's about being safe and secure in your own home.

any criminal brazen enough to loot a man's home in front of him should be shot and killed and put on display for all the other criminals to see lest they too think they can pillage and loot indscriminatly and without consequence. Shoot those motherfuckers like the worthless god damned animals that they are.

139. Ah, such eloquence and clarity of thought.

Maybe, if the native Americans had adopted your ideas, they might have, at least, slowed down the looting and pillaging of this great land by those who desired to "own" it. Yep, there's nothing like that feeling of ownership and property, is there, especially when you've got that bloodlust thing happening.

142. that's the worst argument ever. You fucking fail.

131. What if my own life depends upon that property?

A thief who steals my car could cause me to lose my job, and my health insurance, and my home. Loss of job would mean I would not have the money to buy my medications that keep me alive. Yes, I will shoot to keep my car from being stolen.

The TV set I don't really care about. But if someone illegally breaks into my home I don't know his intentions so I will assume the worst and act accordingly.

34. It happens fairly often.

A fast google search says about 500 children die each year from gun accidents. Lovely that the rate is falling but that's more than one child a day. Each and every day. One or two today. One or two tomorrow. One or two on Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, your birthday.

And if more kids die from other causes, does that make the gun deaths perfectly okay? Not to me.

Drowning deaths are largely preventable, but only a tenth as many people (again, from a fast look on the internet) die in this country each year from drowning than from accidental gunshots.

I'm reminded of the people who think dying from smoking -related causes is perfectly okay, because after all, look at how many people die from drunk-driving accidents. One act of stupidity is not okay just because you don't engage in some other act of stupidity.

39. Respectfully, check the National Safety Council for

data regarding childhood deaths. Firearms rate lowest in the named categories the Council uses, and has been falling faster than the other categories. My hand-held is difficult to operate when it comes to links. Falls, drownings, electrocution all claim more children.

Perhaps the data you see includes homicide or a very liberal notion of "childhood," say 19 yoa?

130. You are off by a factor of ten.

The actual number of child deaths due to gun accidents is about 50 per year. That is using the standard definition of a child as a human under the age of puberty. For statistical purposes age 12 is generally used. Gun controllers, seeking a more horrific number for propaganda purposes have been known to use age 24 as the cut-off.

Against that you must balance an unknown number of children saved because the parents were able to defend the family using a gun.

6. I see it a bit differently.

I would rather have deadly force reserved for two cases: When a person's (or another's) life and limb are in imminent danger, or when an observed felony is being committed. Property owners should never be required to comply with a criminal's demands, or punished in any way for refusing to give up their things. If a criminal persists and threatens to use force to get them, deadly force should be an option for the defender. Similarly, a forceful intruder in your home, workplace, vehicle, etc. has already demonstrated that they are a felonious threat, and should be dealt with that way. I've also got no problem with holding an intruder at gunpoint (or knifepoint, or hammerpoint, or knife-handpoint) so he can't flee.

On the other hand, if somebody is just running away with your cellphone, that's an entirely different animal. Be a good witness and leave fleeing suspects to the police.

11. If you see them do it, and you know for a fact it's a felony,

I believe you should have the legal option to threaten deadly force to stop them, and use it if they persist. Non-cops are not cops, but they're almost always the first ones on the scene, and should be empowered to stop criminals in the act. After the fact, I believe sworn police should take over. That is, private citizens should not shoot fleeing suspects -- they're not LEOs, and their authority to enforce law should be limited.

I believe this is a matter for the states to decide, though I would like to see a similar policy enacted in every state.

31. I believe he's talking about personal property

not shoplifting.
My personal belief is that you shouldn't shoot a thief unless they threaten bodily harm.
Here are the Missouri State Statutes for self defense.
Chapter definitions.
563.011. As used in this chapter the following terms shall mean:

(1) "Deadly force", physical force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he or she knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury;

(2) "Dwelling", any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night;

(3) "Forcible felony", any felony involving the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual, including but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense;

(4) "Premises", includes any building, inhabitable structure and any real property;

(5) "Private person", any person other than a law enforcement officer;

(6) "Private property", any real property in this state that is privately owned or leased;

(7) "Remain after unlawfully entering", to remain in or upon premises after unlawfully entering as defined in this section;

(8) "Residence", a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest;

(9) "Unlawfully enter", a person unlawfully enters in or upon premises or private property when he or she enters such premises or private property and is not licensed or privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his or her purpose, enters in or upon private property or premises that are at the time open to the public does so with license unless he or she defies a lawful order not to enter, personally communicated to him or her by the owner of such premises or by another authorized person. A license to enter in a building that is only partly open to the public is not a license to enter in that part of the building that is not open to the public.

32. Hope you are right. Imminent life threatening danger is the key.

I've seen others post here supporting the use of deadly force against those who would steal or damage property. Hell, we have one member who thinks it's OK for citizens to hold teenagers at gunpoint if he suspects they have toilet paper in their car for the purpose of TPing someone's house.
Some think it's OK to shoot people who try to steal tools, because it threatens their livelihood. Others have said they would shoot window breakers.

37. since you are apparently independently wealthy, you can let someone steal your tools.

As for me, my tools are my livelihood, the way I make the money to feed and clothe my family. Yes I am insured, but if I lose the use of my tools for a week I will lose any work that I have schedules. Customers will go looking for someone who is"more reliable" to meet the schedule.

If you want to support my family while the insurance company dicks around for a couple of weeks, or months, then I will consider letting them be stolen.

43. Not wealthy. On the contrary. Not financially, anyway.

I also depend on tools to make my living. Most humans do, whether those tools be microscopes, table saws or computers. And I have had tools stolen in the past. Tools I used to make a living. Didn't please me, but didn't make me want to hurt anyone, let alone shoot them. We get over shit like that, learn from it and move on, at least I do. Try it, it's quite a rewarding growth experience.
You can take responsibility for your life and the welfare of your family without resorting to killing people over tools, even if you depend on them to make a living. Lives are not replaceable, it's really that simple. You seem to take a way too dramatic an approach to life, my friend.

48. You don't have to kill someone to stop them taking your tools.

57. No, not unless you feel like giving them.

Why can't you stand up for yourself without feeling the need to shoot people? Who's suggesting you protect those who steal from you? If you don't want to lose your shit, then take better care of it. You might want to consider being prepared by having extra tools or extra security or getting insurance if you're so worried. Tools tend to wear out anyway and need to be replaced every so often. What do you do when that happens, shoot yourself?
Such drama? Think about how your family will suffer if you go down for killing your "goblins".

52. if everyone

thought like you crime would be going up, but it is going down every year because people put up are able to defend themselves and their families from criminals thinking they can do what they want when they want. If you just allow a criminals to take something from you it will give them confidence and a sense of arrogance, that they can't be stopped and it would give them every reason to continue their ways! By not defending your self against these people you make the problem worse.

58. What a crock. Where did I say not to defend against would be thieves?

I'm talking about not killing people over stuff. Most people do agree with me on that. Those that don't are the problem. There are many ways to protect your precious possessions without resorting to homicide. We all do it every day.

64. Thank you.

62. I never said

that you did, and I never said that you should kill people solely for running away with your possessions, but if you catch someone in your home in the process of criminal activity you should have the right to defend yourself by way of a firearm, you don't have to fire...that is for extreme circumstances only, but the mere presence of a firearm lets the criminal know that you are armed and he would either flee, or you can hold him until the police arrive.

65. And I have no problem with any of that.

All I'm saying is you should not shoot anyone unless you genuinely fear for your life, or for the lives of others, not because you may lose some material possessions. This is not a complicated concept, but not all agree.

118. I agree with you on this subject.

However, if I'm in my home and a thief is standing there with my laptop in one hand and a gun in the other and I have a gun, the theif is either going to drop his weapon or get shot by me. I will not trust the thief that he will not harm me or my family.

104. I agree with you.

71. Taking away property is taking away life.

I've seen others post here supporting the use of deadly force against those who would steal or damage property.

Here in Alabama, by law I can use deadly force to stop burglary or robbery, and I am glad for it.

Everything I own represents a portion of my life that I traded to acquire it. When you steal it, you are stealing a portion of my life. Yes, I have insurance, but it has a deductible, which again represents more of my life that I will have to expend to cover the replacement of the property, assuming it is replaceable.

But, as I have always maintained, it is not I who sets the value of a criminal's life at the value of my property, anyway - the criminal does. If a criminal decides that his life is worth my television set, who am I to argue with him?

Hell, we have one member who thinks it's OK for citizens to hold teenagers at gunpoint if he suspects they have toilet paper in their car for the purpose of TPing someone's house.

Yes, I am still completely fine with using firearms to stop and hold vandals for the police.

137. It's OK.

My job is OK. I probably like it better than most people. Most people probably end up like my mother as a secretary. They don't really like their jobs but you take what you can get that puts food on the table.

148. I was addressing this specific part of your post:

But, as I have always maintained, it is not I who sets the value of a criminal's life at the value of my property, anyway - the criminal does. If a criminal decides that his life is worth my television set, who am I to argue with him?

Even when someone has chosen to steal some thing of yours in a state where you are allowed to shoot, you do not have to shoot.

At that point, if you choose to kill someone who takes some item from you, you are valuing that item the same as a human life.

155. Any would-be thief should assume that choice is the worst-case for them.

Even when someone has chosen to steal some thing of yours in a state where you are allowed to shoot, you do not have to shoot.

At that point, if you choose to kill someone who takes some item from you, you are valuing that item the same as a human life.

I'm assuming that the thief is fully aware of the risk of losing his life for stealing property. So I'm assuming the thief is OK with that valuation. So if I make the decision to shoot him, I'm assuming that the value determination of the thief's life has already been made.

132. Read his post # 6.

From that post: "Property owners should never be required to comply with a criminal's demands, or punished in any way for refusing to give up their things. If a criminal persists and threatens to use force to get them, deadly force should be an option for the defender."

140. I have no argument with that. It is also my position.

When faced with life threatening circumstances, one always has the option of using whatever they have available. If I choose an option where I end up killing or injuring someone, then I also would have no problem answering to that in a court of law, if need be.

150. That's my position.

Held CCWs and used them in every state I've lived in where I can get one (FU, NY). I hunt with an "assault weapon". Need my toes to count my weapons.

And I will eat the deductible or the loss of my tools or TV or laptop if the thief had turned tail and was running away. Might cover them, in case they decided to turn around and offer a parting shot, but no, I'm not shooting somebody in the back if it isn't legal. If I were to call myself a warrior, I would at least call myself an honorable one.

36. No.

Unarmed petty theft generally isn't a felony, and no, I don't think it's okay to just open fire willy-nilly on somebody stealing a DVD. Use of force has got to be justified, and that force should not be applied without warning, unless there's imminent danger to life and limb.

For instance, a DVD thief can be confronted, restrained, and have police called on him, but there's no excuse for a private citizen shooting him down. A kid showing a fraudulent ID can be confronted and restrained, but there's no sane argument for crushing his skull on the sidewalk.

On the other hand, if somebody's kidnapping a child, I believe bystanders should have the power to confront and stop them, even if they wind up having to brain them with a fire extinguisher to protect the kid. If somebody's about to set a house on fire, I should be able to stop them, even if it means I have to cut his head off with my broadsword and absorb his Quickening.

I'm sure there's a better way to write the rule, but I believe it should be substantially as I described. Many felonies are heinous and harmful enough that they should be stopped by anybody present, with whatever means they have. Anybody using deadly force under that rule had better be damn sure they know what they're doing, and I am all in favor of nailing aggressive vigilantes to the wall.

14. Well then I support changing the definition of a felony. The monetary value threshold should be

something related to the financial well-being (for lack of a better term or determinant) of the owner of the property in question. Why should the theft of one person's phone be more important than the theft of another person's phone just because one person can afford a more expensive phone than the other person can afford?

97. Well, you talked about the difficulty of assessing value of something that someone is running away

with. The item existed and had an identifiable valued before it was taken, so there is no need to "come up with a property asessment as someone is running away with it."

And, again, that was beside the point of my post, which was to mention a particular problem related to the scale, not to offer solutions for other problems associated with the current scale.

My suggestion of an approach to solving that problem was more of an attempt to identify the problem then a an one to lobby for that particular solution, which was a little less obvious, and so more easily missed.

70. OK, I'm with you there.

I realize it can be a tough call in such circumstances, and I would always give more credit to the victim in cases that are not clear cut. This, of course, is much easier to do when the shooting occurs on private property, rather than in the street.

Theft is not always robbery. If we're talking robbery then there is always an inherent threat during the robbery. A fleeing felon presents no credible threat and anyone using the "lost livelihood" defense is dreaming if they think it is guaranteed to convince a jury.

9. I'm of two minds on this one.

On the one hand, I wouldn't shoot someone over stuff. I tend to recoil from the thought. But my livelihood doesn't depend on my stuff.

Not so for everyone.

Not all stuff is equal. Even with insurance, if you make off with some plumber's van, full of his tools, you might knock him right out of his home, or his job and THEN his home, etc, by taking away his ability to make a living. Insurance coverage takes time to deploy, AND, it never covers replacement cost, only current value.

So.. While I would generally not opt for it, I'm not sure it should be illegal to employ deadly force in the case of a felony in progress.

67. Such eloquent grandiosity!

Why would or should we ignore such a relationship? The relationship is apparent. Point is, do you support shooting another when there is no immediate threat to your life? Not some fretting threat of not knowing how, in that moment, you're going to replace your stolen tools.

69. I guess you didn't notice

but we're still trying to dig our way out of the worst recession since 1929. Millions of people are one paycheck away from living on the street. Lots of people can barely afford food and gasoline, much less insurance for tools and equipment used to make a living. Not everyone enjoys the bourgeoisie luxury of owning things for the pleasure of ownership.

I don't support killing people, period. But I'm not so arrogant and jaded that I judge others who may have to fight to survive. When all it takes is one asshole to steal something you have to have to keep a roof over your head and food on the table I would expect anyone with any self respect to fight for it.

through the lives of the working poor shatters the myth that America is a country in which prosperity and security are the inevitable rewards of gainful employment. Armed with an encyclopedic collection of artfully deployed statistics and individual stories Shipler, former New York Times reporter and Pulitzer winner for Arab and Jew, identifies and describes the interconnecting obstacles that keep poor workers and those trying to enter the work force after a lifetime on welfare from achieving economic stability. This America is populated by people of all races and ethnicities, whose lives, Shipler effectively shows, are Sisyphean, and that ncludes the teachers and other professionals who deal with the realities facing the working poor.

75. I didn't miss the recession. Far from it. I would fight that same fight to survive.

I'm still trying to get my business back on track. Fortunately, we haven't had to lay anyone off. We just cut all our salaries back to a level where the boat stays afloat, but making headway is tough. But I'm not complaining, others are far worse off.
But neither of us would shoot someone in the back just for stealing. The conversation here has been about $500 cell phones and accumulated wealth and gun collections etc..
I'm with you and Shipler on the Sisyphean nature of so many people. Something I have been fascinated with for many years. We live in a society that encourages people to be like Sisyphus, by setting them up to fail. Corporate and elitist subjugation of the masses, while selling figurative lottery tickets for success.

26. don't dirty your hands, let your body guards handle it.

18. possessions = small - large chunks of our lives and history.

I've worked most my life to the items and people inside my home. It's insured with a great policy and several SD firearms. Many of the items in this home cannot be replaced by money from a policy. Every one of us here has multiple examples of property that never was or will be recovered.

Those items range from my coin collection that was partially passed down from generations to my mothers jewelery. Many, many family heirlooms are kept inside this home and no amount of angst from ninnies can convince me that giving up is the best tactical decision.

33. I agree 100%

I think we need to differentiate between property, as in junk that we own (regardless of value), and property we live in/on (our home). Entering the latter is a threat to personal safety, leaving it is not. Catch 'em on the way in or in the act and they are fair game. Shoot 'em as they leave, not so good.

30. It should be illegal everywhere.

What does property defense have to do with self defense. Sorry, but the onus is and should be on the shooter to convince cops, prosecutor and/or jury that he/she was in fear of their life, not in fear of losing some junk, no matter it's monetary or sentimental value. No matter it's usefulness. No matter how dependent on it the owner is to make a living. If the taking does not immediately threaten life, then deadly force is never justified.

Anyone who considers property to be worth more than the life of even the most despicable of humans should not own a gun.

108. Really? You think having a moral compass is contingent on being religious?

Sounds to me like you might still be a Republican.
"I have engaged with people in my former profession who's life isn't worth the air they consume breathing."And IMO, that makes you a huge part of the problem. What a truly disgusting post.

72. What about the theives themselves?

Anyone who considers property to be worth more than the life of even the most despicable of humans should not own a gun.

What about the thieves themselves who set the value of their life against whatever it is they wish to risk it against by stealing?

Everyone should realize that the price you might pay for robbery or burglary is death. If you know this, and choose to undertake robbery or burglary anyway, who is it who has set the value of life here? The thief has.

If the taking does not immediately threaten life, then deadly force is never justified.

Thankfully this is not true here in Alabama. Here in Alabama, you can use deadly force to stop burglary and robbery.

116. What does that have to do with anything I said?

I don't think the courts are handing out death sentences for burglary, even in your wonderfully progressive state of Alabama. Fortunately, they don't know about your ideas of justice, but if you start acting out your fantasies, I'm thinking it won't belong before you'll have the opportunity to explain it all to them.

133. Oh, good.

156. In my case, prudence might require me NOT to differentiate.

I'm 5'4" tall and weigh a little under 110 lbs. In the rather large majority of cases, a person committing a property crime is going to be significantly larger and stronger than I am. It is not difficult to envision a scenario in which they will be aware of my presence...and at that point I have to be ready to defend myself. I can't read minds...I cannot know their intent.

This certainly doesn't mean I'd automatically employ deadly force. Far from it. Chances are good that once observed, their priority will be to get away as quickly as possible, and in my view I have no ethical right to use force (even if they're carrying stolen property with them as they flee). However, if they begin to approach me (or reach for something that I can't immediately identify as not being a weapon), then prudence dictates that I act to defend myself. I can not allow them to get withing grabbing distance: I'd be essentially defenseless against what is almost certain to be a much more physically dangerous person. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that even if their obvious original intent was theft that once the observe that I've witnessed them, that intent won't change.

As said, I think the much more common scenario is that the would-be thief would flee. But it's not the only plausible outcome.

35. From the inception of this country...

...the basic rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness have little meaning if those pursuits may be lost or destroyed by the selfish, capricious and arbitrary decisions of criminals. Some folks after a lifetime of work may, due to bad luck or low wages, may have not so much worth of possessions but who am I to decide that while it might be okay to shoot someone over a truck and $15,000 in tools that it isn't acceptable to shoot someone over grandma's pearls.

"Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one's life, one’s goods or one's physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor's death... In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one's life or one's goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim." - Thomas Aquinas

80. My philosophy is "if you can't afford to lose it, insure it."

Otherwise don't buy it. I notice the bike owner took care of the thief in an appropriate manner. I doubt he will be stealing too many more bikes. I have a bike (paid $600 for it 9 years ago). It is my principle mode of transportation when on land. I rarely lock it, never cover it, never clean it. I just ride it almost every day. It's a folding Dahon, aluminum frame and wheels, kevlar tires, rides like a dream. Not a thief magnet.

87. Yeah, I figured it was something asinine, and I guess Erie is just a lake.

I'm tired of chasing bones like that. Especially now we appear to have a solid group of rational and intelligent members who actually want a conversation. Who knows, we may yet make this place a little more palatable to a wider audience.

100. With posts like #19, I think GC & RKBA is a long way from that.

113. This will always be a place where morons come in an attempt to pollute.

The key to making it a better place is not to respond to posts like that. Eventually, they get the message that some are here to have a conversation. The purpose of the troll is to disrupt by posting outrageous comments and ugly images. If nobody reacts, they slide back under their rocks.

85. I totally agree.

63. While it is not wrong...

...to act with violence in self-defense or the defense of property, the most moral actions would include using the minimum of violence and showing mercy. Failing to show mercy isn't a crime but it is something you might have trouble living with afterwards.

It is also important to forgive the offender after the event; learn from what has happened but let go of the offense itself. You'll just feel better.

82. Massad Ayoob has a lot to say on this topic, actually

He is of the opinion that, while it might be legal, it is generally foolish to escalate a potentially violent situation in any case. If life and limb are not on the line, it is rare that introducing deadly force will result in a better situation for anybody. Even if a shooter is justified, the consequences of a "good shoot" are still exhausting and difficult. Forget your ego, forget your jacket, forget your wallet -- don't bring out that gun, don't flick that knife, don't swing that bat, until and unless there's a dire need. I generally agree, though I firmly believe that the decision to deescalate by compliance should be at the discretion of the victim. It's his stuff, after all, and it should be his decision whether it's worth using violence to defend. It's usually not, but sometimes it is.

145. good post to think about

As far as some people say they are willing to go to defend life and property because it would mean loss of income they should stop and think that a shooting may put them in court. That will certainly damage the bank account.

You could be out of work for quite a while. Lawyer fees may need to be paid. You may lose your firearm, for a time or for good.

If I were in a deadly force situation I would likely have my firearm taken for the duration and without my pistol im out of work and I cant borrow one.

Just something to think about.

Some in my field are so afraid of law suits they haven't fired on a criminal even when justified. Even when they have a firearm pointed back at them.

102. Like Zimmerman shot an unarmed innocent person way outside the perimeter of his home?

a real man gives up his wallet and then files an insurance claim and moves on with his LIFE

guns kill
brains beat braun in the long run

nothing one owns is worth killing another person for

(and the person who steals a wallet is most likely down on their luck and needs a meal.
For all we know, the kid Zimmerman killed could have been the one who cured cancer.

And Zimmerman in another age might have shot Jesus in the back too, with the paranoid delusions he had of being in danger, and having the all mighty gun in his hand, if Jesus was alive and walking around Zimmy's town.

the lengths gun lovers, groupies go to to attempt to justify their obsessions is beyond me.

(this of course is directed at gun lovers, gun groupies, NRA fanatics. Anyone posting in this thread of course who is not, this not directed at you).

138. How was the asswipe claiming self defense when he chased an unarmed man named Mr. Martin?

Had the idiot stayed in his own home, there would have been no problem

but the rightwing extermist went on a lookout to kill a black person and stalked Mr. Martin
and then shot him in cold blood

If anyone would have had a right to claim self defense it would have been poor Mr. Martin
not Zimmy the vigillante paranoid obsessive gun freak playing mall cop like he was the Paul Blart of the Florida area he was in

146. For me, as for a few others here,

the idea of deadly force to protect property is a tough one. I don't really rely on any of my "stuff" for a living. If someone breaks into my car in the driveway, sets off the alarm, I'll call the cops. If I hear someone in my garage (below my bedroom, but I would have to go outside to get to it) I think I would let the situation run its course, though maybe I would investigate. Questionable behavior on my part here in SoCal. If someone broke into my house at night, I would have to assume that they were desperate and capable of anything, even though their intent might only be my TV and stereo. So there is the question for me: Is it my TV, or might my life be in the balance too? I have decided that inside my house I'm not going to ask any questions, or doubt that my wife and I are in danger.